Pages

Friday, November 19, 2010

Vicarious baptism

Mormons notoriously practice proxy baptism. They cite the cryptic verse in 1 Cor 15:29 as their prooftexts. For now I’m not going to discuss the correct interpretation of that passage. Ciampa/Rosner have a thorough and sensible explanation in their newly published commentary.

I’m going to make a different point. There’s an inner logic to the Mormon position given the premise, and their premise is a premise which liturgical churches share. If you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, then there's an undeniable logic to proxy baptism given your operating assumption. After all, if someone dies before he was baptized, then the only way to save him would be through some retroactive, postmortem transaction involving a second party.

And liturgical traditions generally agree with Mormonism on the necessity of baptism. They like to quote those Scriptural passages which verbally link baptism to salvation, or other attendant blessings. They prooftext baptismal regeneration and/or baptismal justification.

But if, for the sake of argument, we accept that connection, then what about those who never had an opportunity to be saved?

Of course, you have churches which accept the premise, but then have to fudge on their governing principle, like the ad hoc, Tridentine escape-clauses involving baptism by desire or baptism by martyrdom. But in that respect, Mormonism is more consistent with the faulty premise than Catholicism.

It’s easy to attack the Mormon position, and rightly so. After all, Mormonism is a thoroughgoing cult. But when you think about it, liturgical churches operate within the same framework. They are simply less consistent. Vicarious baptism represents the reductio ad absurdum of a premise widely held by many theological traditions.

I'm not so sure .. if the idea is true that baptism is the new covenant circumcision than what does that say about circumcision?

As an aside, the issue of paedobaptism, it seems to me, is really an issues about the ambiguity of baptism itself, in scripture vis-a-vis social views of self-responsibility vs parental responsibility.

Further on this note, the Essenes themselves, who also practiced ritual baptism, seem to also have had two minds on the matter, as there seems to be evidence there were clear periods when children were excluded/included from participating.

The reductio does not work, both because there is an adequate response to your question and because the question can also be altered slightly and asked of Christians who don't believe in baptism:

"then what about those who never had an opportunity to be saved?"

A. They were not predestined to be saved. They are not numbered among the elect. When you insist "they did not have an opportunity to be saved" you are not questioning "liturgical churches" you are questioning God who did not providentially give them that opportunity. He did not give the animist in the deepest Amazon the opportunity to be saved either, if you believe we are saved by Faith in Christ alone, regardless of whether or not you also believe in Baptism.

B. It's a purely hypothetical question. As for actual people, how can you know for sure they never had an opportunity to be saved? Are you an omniscient observer?

"A. They were not predestined to be saved. They are not numbered among the elect. When you insist 'they did not have an opportunity to be saved' you are not questioning 'liturgical churches' you are questioning God who did not providentially give them that opportunity. He did not give the animist in the deepest Amazon the opportunity to be saved either, if you believe we are saved by Faith in Christ alone, regardless of whether or not you also believe in Baptism."

Since liturgical traditions generally reject heavy-duty predestination, limited atonement &c, your analogy breaks down at the critical point of comparison. That's not a point of tension in my theology.

On the one hand, I don't think baptism is necessary for salvation. On the other hand, I also don't think God wills the salvation of everyone. Therefore, the fact that God doesn't give everyone an opportunity to be saved, on my view, doesn't generate the same tension as it does for theological traditions which regard baptism as a precondition of salvation–for those traditions usually do affirm unlimited atonement, and/or conditional election (while rejecting reprobation).

"B. It's a purely hypothetical question. As for actual people, how can you know for sure they never had an opportunity to be saved? Are you an omniscient observer?"

ἐκκλησία asked:---...if the idea is true that baptism is the new covenant circumcision than what does that say about circumcision?---

I'm not quite sure I understand the "tone" of you question (I use "tone" for lack of a better word).

Are you asking why those who would say baptism saves don't necessarily believe that circumcision did? Or are you arguing-by-question that since circumcision obviously didn't save anyone, neither does baptism?

By liturgical traditions, are you vaguely referring to all of them or any particulars? If you are referring to Orthodoxy in particular, I believe that you have set up a straw-man. If you are talking about Catholicism or any of the liturgically minded Protestant traditions that speak of the necessity of baptism for salvation (are there any? I am not sure) then perhaps you have made a good point, perhaps you have not. I'm not Catholic nor am I a liturgically minded Protestant that believes salvation is necessary for salvation so I can't say one way or the other for them.

Peter Pike said: "I'm not quite sure I understand the "tone" of you question."

No tone was intended Peter, but your latter reflection is closer to the nature of the question than the former.

The issue is this; although the letter of the old covenant points clearly to the spirit of the new, the two are not unrelated.

The principle behind physical circumcision was to denote the sign of obedience [Gen 17:10-14] to the covenant. As a sign, the signifier was the circumcision itself, and the signified was the spirit of obedience.

We also know that circumcision (the sign) happened to both adults and children.

When we talk of baptism however, we have to distinguish between baptism of water, and baptism of the Holy Spirit, for one denotes the other. The baptism by water signifies the baptism by the Holy Spirit but it is still only an outward sign. More clearly it denotes the circumcision of the heart, which is the same as the spirit of obedience found in the old covenant, and the same thing physical circumcision denoted.

We know that as an adult, Jesus was baptised by water, as an example for us only since Jesus was already the son of God before he was baptised by John (contradicting that Quaker belief that He only became the son of God one baptised).

So if it is true that the circumcision of the flesh (as signifier) denotes the same thing that baptism by water denotes (also as signifier) than it's natural to ask what baptism exactly is needed for salvation, just as its natural to ask was it the circumcision of the flesh itself, that man one covenantal?

In terms of the signifier, Israelites were commanded to circumcise their infants, but I would argue from [Exo 19:5] (and others), that it was through obedience only (in other words faith), that children grew into that right relationship with God, and not simply because of circumcision they had received.

If true then, baptism by water has as much to do with salvation as circumcision does being covenantal.

There were circumcised who did not obey God and clearly were not recipients of covenant blessings. Even so, the physical sign of circumcision was still the sign God gave to denote covenant people. This is no different than Christians receiving baptism (either as children or adults) and acting like non-Christians. Once baptised, however baptised, people still have to grow into that right relationship with God in the manner of [Phil 2:12].

This, of course, is only true if water baptism is indeed the new covenant circumcision.

Nonsense. The open-ended question "what about those who never had the opportunity to be saved?" can be asked of anyone who believes that some people do not have the opportunity to be saved, regardless of whether they believe baptism is necessary for salvation or not. As long as you think anything is necessary for salvation, and some people do not have the opportunity to receive that thing, the question can be asked of you. And saying "people who believe in baptism MUST believe in baptism of the dead or occult spooky waterless baptism" is just like saying "people who believe that faith is necessary for salvation MUST believe in occult unconscious spooky implicit faith." Of course it simply isn't true in either case that the person in question MUST believe the thing you want him to believe so that you can ridicule him. Rather, you would LIKE HIM to because you enjoy ridiculing people. That's not the same thing at all.

Furthermore even if it is true that some people in what you call "liturgical" churches, meaning those that teach baptism is necessary for salvation, don't believe in predestination, that's just an accident. The two things are not essentially connected. There are also people who believe in neither predestination nor necessary baptism, there are people who believe in both predestination and necessary baptism, and there are people such as yourself who believe in predestination but not the necessity of baptism. Every combination is found, because those are two different questions not essentially related questions.

"Nonsense. The open-ended question 'what about those who never had the opportunity to be saved?' can be asked of anyone who believes that some people do not have the opportunity to be saved, regardless of whether they believe baptism is necessary for salvation or not. As long as you think anything is necessary for salvation, and some people do not have the opportunity to receive that thing, the question can be asked of you."

You're being simplistic. The "same question" doesn't have the same force for every theological tradition. That depends on the internal dynamics of the tradition in question. If it's God's will to save everyone, if baptism is a precondition for salvation, yet baptism is not available to everyone (in this life), then this generates a logical tension into a theological tradition which adheres to that set of propositions.

The same cannot be said for Calvinism. Therefore, considerations like reprobation or limited atonement are hardly "accidental" to your argument. Since Calvinism makes no pretense of God intending to save everyone, or make provision for everyone's salvation, the lack of universal opportunity is entirely consistent with Calvinism. By contrast, that's inconsistent with the theological traditions I targeted in my post.

"'The same question' does not have the same force for every theological tradition."

And it seems to me that the root of your error is in your ahistorical assumption that there are precisely two theological traditions.

The fact of the matter is that there is no essential connection between belief in baptism and disbelief in predestination, which you must either consciously or unconsciously be aware of--hence your failure to even attempt to rationally demonstrate such a connection, and historically speaking Christendom from the beginning of the middle ages until the time of Calvin, Molina, and Arminius believed in both baptismal regeneration and predestination. It was only during the 16th century and later that substantial parties within western Christendom began to reject one or the other or both of these doctrines.

I have not failed to be rational in this discussion. Why don't you try to be rational (and historical).

"And it seems to me that the root of your error is in your ahistorical assumption that there are precisely two theological traditions."

Far from it. There's the Reformed tradition, then there are all the erroneous traditions to the contrary.

"The fact of the matter is that there is no essential connection between belief in baptism and disbelief in predestination, which you must either consciously or unconsciously be aware of--hence your failure to even attempt to rationally demonstrate such a connection..."